The people who run college basketball must have hated it two years ago when George Mason went on a dynamic and thrilling NCAA Tournament run, all the way to the Final Four. That was also the year that Bradley and Wichita State made it to the Sweet 16. And of course, Southern Illinois-Carbondale is always a tough out in the NCAA Tournament, and never a fun experience for a BCS program.

Apparently the NCAA Tournament selection committee is determined to keep the mid-majors in their place, and do what’s necessary to reduce the risk to the big boys of college basketball. The big boys are the earners for TV, and for the NCAA. The network and ESPN talkers love them, and promote them.

After George Mason, Bradley and Wichita State went wild, only six mid-majors received at-large bids the following year. And this year, it’s six again. That follows a trend in which we saw the mid-majors get as many as 12, or nine, bids.

I’ll be a conspiracy kook and suggest it: the basketball bosses want to give the power conferences every chance to last in the tournament and not get rubbed out by a mid-major.

Let me try to offer some reasons that back up my hunch:

Xx Drake, the MVC champ, is a No. 5 seed. Could have been a four. Vanderbilt is a four; Drake is as good as Vandy. But worse than that, the committee sent the Bulldogs to a first-round site in Tampa. Now, I am not very good at geography, but I believe it would have been easier for Iowa-based Drake fans to make those first-round venues at Omaha, Little Rock or Denver. Many teams in this dance have been given the courtesy of playing close to home. But not the MVC’s lone rep.

Xx The Big East, ranked fifth in the RPI, got seven at-large bids. And the non-power conferences, combined, got six. Oh, and by the way: the MVC went 2-0 vs. Big East teams this season.

Xx Notice how the selection committee is now pairing mid-majors against each other in the first round? It happened last year, and that method is in practice again this year. Take a look:

Drake plays Western Kentucky.

Butler plays South Alabama (in Birmingham).

Gonzaga plays Davidson.

Kent State faces UNLV.

The point? Well, if you put eight mid-majors against each other, they don’t have a chance to upset one of the big boys, and only four of them can get through to the next round. (Of course, it also means that at least four will get through; that’s what the committee would argue. But I don’t see it that way. I see it as reducing the level of first-round danger for the BCS teams.

And I’ve always thought one of the greatest things about this tournament was watching the middleweights get their shot, straight up, against the heavyweights. I’d rather watch that than some first-round snoozer between two BCS conference mediocrities.

xx You can make a case to justify excluding Illinois State, the second-best MVC team. But I ask this question: what does Villanova have over Illinois State other than the Big East pass?

Let’s take a look:

Illinois State 

RPI: 35
Division I wins: 23
SOS rank: 73
Record vs. top 50: 2-5
Record vs. top 100: 5-5
Record in last 10: 8-2
Record at road/neutral sites: 9-8

Villanova

RPI: 51
Division I wins: 20
SOS rank: 45
Record vs. top 50: 3-7
Record vs. top 100: 7-8
Record in last 10: 6-4
Record at road/neutral sites: 8-9

It’s a close call, granted. I can see why some would say ‘Nova, due to the SOS. And let me say that I could have also put up a chart that included Arizona, Kentucky, etc. in comparison to Illinois State. This isn’t only about ISU’s qualification compared to Villanova’s. But again, no one can truly convince me that the close calls won’t go to the big boys. The earners will get the benefit of the doubt from the moneychangers who run the sport.

As MVC commissioner Doug Elgin said: the mid-majors don’t have to be just as good or equal to the Bigs to get a bid — they must show that they are so much better that it defies the committee’s unspoken desire to keep the mid-majors under the its thumb.

–B